Please, only if Merce dances to it.All of this, mind you, takes places around the subjectiveness of art. Art is what you think it is--see John cage's "4:33" for more on this...
Please, only if Merce dances to it.All of this, mind you, takes places around the subjectiveness of art. Art is what you think it is--see John cage's "4:33" for more on this...
True dat. Is Shakespeare great because he mastered the form of the sonnet or because he revolutionized the form of the sonnet?Originally Posted by Rojo
There's a bunch of people who could play the hell out of an instrument but didn't bleed the life out of it: Zappa, Greg Allman, Eddie Hazel, Paul Thompson, Buddy Rich, Coltrane (as mentioned), Cannonball Adderly, Milt Jackson, Miles Davis, Ornette Coleman, Charles Mingus, Willie Nelson (one of THEE most underrated guitarists in musical history). The list is endless. Virtuosity takes you roughly a third of the way to greatness; the rest is idiosyncracy, how much you stretch the form to do your bidding without utterly dissolving into chaos. That's art.
Last edited by Falls City Beer; 07-26-2005 at 02:49 PM.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Some smart guy said, "All art is context."Originally Posted by registerthis
Put that urinal in a museum. Voila, art!
I agree and disagree. Art is subjective, but there are rules, said Kant, a posteriori.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
By any description of the word "overrated"--Eric Clapton does NOT belong on this list. Being able to write, perform or simply enjoy listening to The Blues is in no way correlated to the amount of money one possesses. He has lived a long and troubled life fraught with abandonment, drug addiction, personal insecurities and death. I dunno, but I would wager that Clapton would gladly sacrifice all of his past commercial success in order to hold his son one more time. But, I guess, you feel that his bank account balance mitigates any ability he might have to know about "the real blues..."Originally Posted by Roy Tucker
FCB, glad to see you give the props to willie. He may not be able to keep time but he is one of the most lyrical guitar players ever. Just beautiful.
School's out. What did you expect?
Damn straight. His voice and picking often bring tears to my eyes.Originally Posted by pedro
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
He offered my friend a mustache ride.Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
Even better.Originally Posted by westofyou
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
And what might those be?Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
What rules could you possibly attach to a field that, by its nature, is about pushing boundaries and definitions? Some people hear Neil Young and think "talented artist". others hear him and think "talentless hack".
There is plenty of garbage created under the name of "art" that I don't think much of. Twisted hunks of metal labeled as a "sculpture". But who am I--or anyone, for that matter--to make the determination as to what is art and what is not? I'm not going to make that call for someone else, no matter how right I may believe my opinions to be.
Cage's piece was about this very topic--how do you define the boundaries of art?
The same day she hit Neil Young in the head with a hackey sackOriginally Posted by Falls City Beer
Is the shape of a crab nebula art? Is a solar flare art? Is the world art?Originally Posted by registerthis
While the boundaries are subjective, there is chaos and there is order. Somewhere in the tension between those two things good and bad art are made. And our determinations(our "rules," if you will), our terms for praising or condemning an artwork are a posteriori, after the fact. There is no a priori "recipe" for art, for instance. Some other smart guy said, there is good art, there is bad art, then there is chaos. You know it when you see (hear, taste, smell) it.
My personal belief is that for something to be art, the human will must have been exerted upon nature in some fashion. But I'm anthropocentric. I can't go around naming things like Adam and call them art willy-nilly.
Last edited by Falls City Beer; 07-26-2005 at 03:18 PM.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
The Doors- ok, but not that good
U2- their lastest album is a piece of trash, yet it wins awards??
Stones- tough one, but not as good as Beatles-which they are rated by most
Elvis-worlds first pop star. not that good, popular because of contraversy
Blink 182- nothing good since Budda
Easy there cowboy. I'm a Clapton fan too. I just don't think he's turned out anything truly consequential since the mid 70's and has rested on his laurels for a long time. I'm guessing you don't. That's all cool with me. Different strokes.Originally Posted by Blimpie
Your blues comment is an interesting one and caused me to think about it for a while.
I feel that great art often comes out of great talent fused with great suffering or conflict. Not always, but there is a big correlation there. I think Clapton through his youth and into young adulthood was going through a lot of turmoil and that was reflected in his works. I think his early stuff was great. Not just a groove or pretty good, but *great*.
But I also think all that struggle and turmoil often resolves itself into a more healthy and constructive (and positive) lifestyle. Much better for the person, much better for all their loved ones, but it does take the edge off their art. I think Clapton's life has taken this path and I'm happy for him it has.
When I listen to a blues record it's got to have authenticity. Like anything by Robert Johnson or John Lee Hooker. Maybe it's just me, but knowing Clapton is sitting on a pile of cash while singing the blues takes the edge off that credibility. He has to reach a long ways back in his life to pull that authenticity out. He makes noble and honest efforts, but it's too far IMHO.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
I believe each individual has their own definitions for what does and does not constitute a work of art.
I do not, however, believe that a universal standard does - or can - exist.
I suspect not either. But I know when I see bad art why it's bad art, and I know when I see good art why it's good art. I know there are standards, I just don't always know how they can be applied or when or why. Because what makes something work in one piece of art can ruin it in another. It's very tricky.Originally Posted by registerthis
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |